FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEATONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as an underwear buyer on the 19th of April, 1999. She was a fashion design graduate of N.C.A.D. and had worked in the fashion industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and the Far East.
The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed by the Company on the 15th of September, 1999. She claims that she was not given any verbal or written warnings and that the Company declined to give her a written explanation for her dismissal.
The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. However, the Company objected to the investigation on the grounds that the claimant was engaged on a nine month probationary period, that she was deemed unsuitable for the position and that, therefore, her position was not made permanent. On the 15th of December, 1999, the claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 31st of January, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker was not given a verbal or written warning about her work. She took computer courses in her own time and at her own expense to improve her computer skills and frequently worked early and late to develop her skills on the Company's computer system.
2 All of the worker's buying decisions had to be approved by the Buying Controller. He did not criticise her choices or change them and all of her products sold very well, especially those for Autumn\Winter 1999.
3 The Managing Director carried out a range review of the worker's products on the 8th of September, 1999. He awarded her 8 out of 10 and said "well done". The worker's dismissal one week later was a total shock.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker was employed under a contract of employment which set out a probationary period of nine months, which was to assess her suitability for permanent employment.
2 The Buying Controller spoke to the worker at various times regarding difficulties in relation to her work performance. The worker was given every opportunity to meet the standards required and sufficient time within which to improve her performance.
3 The Company adhered to best industrial relations procedure and practice. However, the Company was not in a position to offer the worker full time employment as the Company believed that she had not made the transition from designer to buyer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence on a number of key issues, including whether the management had indicated to the claimant dissatisfaction with her performance.
It was accepted by management that the transition from designing to purchasing was a significant step. While the Court understands the pressures on management in the situation outlined, the Court is not satisfied that sufficient support and training was put in place to enable the claimant to make the transition.
Taking into account all aspects of this case, the Court finds the manner of the claimant's dismissal to be unfair.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant a lump sum of £1,500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd February, 2000______________________
D.G./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.